Picasso & Modern Art

[Peter Jochems]

The definition of ART, The definition of GOD, Where is this going to?!?!, please go on!

Peter

[Lon Haverly]

Such a tiny fraction (say, .5 percent, a plausible arbritrary figure) of our population has 99% of the knowledge of art. And half of those are questionable in terms of the views of the other other half.

We need to get real art education back into the schools (I am talking grade school, and serious basics) so that children can grow up with some skills. Then we will have a society which produces some quality art and knows it when they see it.

[Jim Riley]

I couldn't agree more about the need for more education in the arts. The preoccupation has been with science and math scores as a basis for measuring education. Therefore support and staffing of these programs come at the expense of subjects like music and art. I'm not sure that it was ever any better. My elementary education devoted two or three hours a week to art and it happened only if everyone behaved the previous week and the good nuns offered it only as a reward.

I participated recently with six local artists in "Art Day" at a local elementary school where we showed landscapes, portraits, sculpture, and drawings in representational and modern approaches. Response was enthusiastic and their questions ran the gamut of the expected, some insightful, and many not related. (As in "how old are you"? Do you have kids?). The classrooms and hallways were filled with a surprising range of subjects, styles, and media. In talking with those teachers and often with my daughter who has taught high school art and recently had K thru 6 students it seems that the programs aim to make students familiar with and construct things with a broad range of materials employing a wide variety treatments. Fortunately, to my mind, they are not steered toward any particular style and not judged on the basis of realistic/modern. Students then have open discussions on what they have learned and observed. From what I have learned there does not tend to be much awareness of any ongoing argument about realism versus realistic art and it would be my hope that being visually literate (?) will make them both sensitive and articulate in the visual arts. I hope teaching children to be knowledgeable and capable of producing good art doesn't mean that they must accept any one school of thought over another.

And an open question: How ignorant do we believe the public to be and how much "training" do they need to respond to the visual arts. And secondly, for lack of any evidence that I am aware of, why do we think there is such a division in the broad art community over realism and modern art?

[Mike McCarty]

And An open question: How ignorant do we believe the public to be and how much "training" do they need to respond to the visual arts.

I have an observation. I recently took a trip with my daughter through the northeast. Part of this trip was by train from NYC north alongside the Hudson river. Another train took us along the coastline of Connecticut. Neither of us had seen this beautiful country. The interesting thing to me is how differently she and I responded to this "visual" stimulus. I am jerking around from one side of the train to the other afraid that I might miss some aspect of this terrific view. My daughter, a bright 17 year old, read four large novels during the course of our trip. While all this captivating visual stimulation was moving past our train she chose to read. I relate to the world through images. Most of what I know has been absorbed and interpreted through my eyes. Most of what she knows has come from verbal or written stimulus.

There is, I believe, and it may well be the majority, a huge percentage of the human race that can never grasp why we must relate to the world the way we do. They go through the motions and they make nice but they don't understand how or why we choose to observe instead of listen, to draw pictures instead of make conversation. Obviously both can function effectively but it can cause problems.

I don't think that I could be trained to act otherwise nor do I believe we can train the other side to switch.

[Jim Riley]

Mike,

I must confess that when I was your daughters age and even though I knew I was going to be an artist I may have spent most of my time in books also. It's a three hour train ride from my home to New York city and I have many areas that I look forward to seeing/studying but must confess that I mostly read.

Robert Henri noted the experience that he has when viewing a painting and explains that he feels as though he is meeting the artist. I immediately understood his comment and realize that the trained artist can make a connection to the painting and the artist that the lay person might never understand. It' a wonderful connection and I often want to say out loud "I know/understand what you were doing. Thanks".

My question though is how much Art Education/Appreciation and or hands on training is needed for the average person to share and appreciate the artist effort. Above and beyond the response to my ability to capture the spirit and likeness of my subjects, the painting usually generates discussion regarding composition, technique, colors and the like. In other words, it seems to me that the general public may not be as ignorant as we think.

Most of my artist friends thrive on conversation though not as good at listening.

[Mike McCarty]

The point I was trying to make is that people fall into, and these are gross generalizations of course, basically one of three categories: visual, verbal and tactile. The latter being very much a minority. They interpret and gain their insights of the world either by seeing, hearing or feeling. Of course we can all feel, we can all see but generally we have a primary orientation towards one or the other. There are always exceptions, like you and I, who can do all three with equal aplomb. But for those who are purely verbal, in my opinion, they can discuss the visual arts on an intellectual level but in fact would rather read or hear about it than actually look at it.

In my opinion there is a vast number of people who will never be our audience. They will write poetry and they will become surgeons but they just don't connect to our visual arts.

[Gene Snyder]

I think technology has much to do with this. Everything/everyone is faster, quicker, and higher-paced. I think many would rather go to see a movie instead of a show at the nearest gallery.

By comparision, I see the annual Salon in 1800's Paris as the equivalent of today's Superbowl. Everyone attended and it was a huge social event. And isn't the Sistine chapel the equivalent of a billboard today? It is selling the word of the Bible to the people - isn't it? The motives are the same although I really doubt that conservators are going to be restoring a Cingular Wireless billboard any time soon!

The times have changed and I think the general population's needs for art have changed as well. Do they still want art? Yes. Do as many want art? No. Technology has slowly taken the public's attention away from art.

Question: So how do we get around this as "traditional" artists?

Hand me my cell phone....

[Susan Ballinger]

Hmmm... how to get traditional art into a technological world. How about a billboard with the Mona Lisa on it?

Maybe we can get together via teleconference and discuss this.

Susan

[Lon Haverly]

Children can be taught the basics of drawing without any philosophy of realism versus abstract. We teach them the alphabet and reading and writing basics. They are then free to read and write as they wish after they learn the basics. Why can't we just give them fundamentals of drawing when they learn cursive, so that they can realize that they have an instinctive, common, human ability to draw. When they realize that, they can go in any direction. But without the basics, children are robbed of choice. Why bother with crafts, crayolas and crappy water paints? They will learn nothing from that stuff.

My art training began when I was seven. Pencil. Watercolor. (The real stuff, not just colored paste.) Oil.

How long? I think that kids can start learning graphite at age seven, should be painting watercolor by age ten. By middle school, they should be experimenting with three-dimensional mediums, after having a strong and consistent drawing background. High school age should be specialized studies in sculpture, oils, or other medea. The problem is, there are so many methods of drawing, and so many experts. Who is to say what is the "primary method"?

Cost? We can afford whatever we really want. Art specialties can be taught via the computer or DVD by masters like yourself at a very low cost.

I have created two CD-ROM instructional videos myself. It was fun and has convinced me that this is a good way to teach a larger group of students. It places the lesson in perfect proximity to the student, allows them to pause and rewind better than VCR lessons, and there are computers already in every school.

[Renee Price]

I have to jump in here. I am very much an auditory learner. However, in another life I was a dance teacher and have chosen to concentrate solely on pursuing a career in visual arts. So what does that make me? Be careful how you answer!

I spent a semester teaching art in Middle School. Based entirely on my experience, the basics in art were lacking. I walked in with art history, drawing pencils, and dreams of inspiring future artists. I was greeted with tracing, and "that's too hard" and "we never had to do that before." I will leave out the fringe benefits of a teacher having his leg broken outside my classroom along with other assaults on teachers that did not require hospitalization - a gun, and a drug overdose in my room. I digress. The kids I taught were used to tracing cartoons from handouts. So when I came in preaching lessons from "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" along with studying the great masters, I was not well received. I can say that some kids learned how to draw that semester and were upset when I left, others organized a party.

There are really good art programs with strong funding out there (I know this because I've read about them ), but I have to agree with Lon about children learning the basics. I also agree that the merit of children's art should not be based on realism. Artists do not draw things and people, we draw our interpretation of things and people. I guess that's the backbone of Modern Art - interpretation. Personally, I agree with Nelson Shanks' reported view of modern art!

Renee Price